Muslim bigots impose blasphemy laws on Victoria

At the behest of Muslim bigots and multiculturalist fanatics the Bracks Government suspended free speech in Victoria by imposing a blasphemy law dressed up as an anti-vilification law. This has given Islamo-fascists a freehand to attack critics of Islam.

In a ruthless attempt to intimidate critics Muslim fanatics reported two pastors to Diane Sisely, the Equal Opportunity Commission boss, for criticising the Koran. This enemy of free speech and her fellow Stalinoids on the commission then launched proceedings against the pastors for exercising their fundamental and inalienable right to free speech. So far these pastors have had to pony up more than $100,000 to defend themselves against Bracks’ obscene blasphemy law and these lefty zealots.

However, circumstantial evidence suggests that members of the Equal Opportunity Commission entered into a conspiracy to prosecute these pastors in order to intimidate potential critics of Islam into remaining silent.

Diane Sisely hired May Helou, a Muslim bigot, to help her identify people criticising Islam. True to form, this Muslim Torquemada quickly swung into action. Helou incited several Muslim converts to attend a seminar on jihad that had been organised by a Melbourne Pentecostal church. As a result three Muslims attended. About 250 Christians were present.

Pastor Danny Nalliah and Pastor Daniel Scot addressed the crowd. Pastor Daniel Scot, who had been sentenced to death in Pakistan for his Christian beliefs, accurately cited passages from the Koran and the Hadith, pointing out that these had been used by fanatical clerics to justify jihad against the West, lying for Islam, murdering apostates, raping female prisoners, etc. (Tell me, little Miss Sisely, do these passages make the Koran hate speech?)

The Pastors’ response to this barbarism was that Christians should pray and that Muslims “should be loved”. (This just goes to show how viciously intolerant these Christians really are). Well, this was just too much for our freedom-loving Muslim converts. Seething with trumped-up indignation, these monuments to the unquestionable benefits of multiculturalism complained, surprise, surprise, to May Helou who immediately brought the EOC down on the heads of our oh so dangerous Pastors. As a member of the commission this Muslim bigot even got to sit in judgment on its religious victims. (Talk about acting as judge, jury and executioner).

There is no doubt in my mind that some members of the commission conspired with May Helou to engage in the religious persecution of these Christian critics of Islam. Given the nature of the evidence there should be an immediate and independent investigation of Sisely and Helou. As the EOC has been compromised by religious bigotry and its obvious contempt for Australian values, it should be abolished.

Under Bracks’ blasphemy law these victims of Muslim intolerance were ordered by the Orwellian Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to publicly apologise and humiliate themselves by spending $23,000 on ads. Furthermore, the Tribunal’s commissars ordered the pastors to submit to a form of re-education. They bravely refused to kowtow to these intellectual thugs.

The disgusting Stalinoid behaviour of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal perfectly mirrors the behaviour of communist parties. Those who dissent from the party line are ordered to attend a meeting of party members where they are then humiliated and verbally abused. This continues until the victims submit*. Fortunately for Victorians, though they don’t know it yet, these pastors are determined to see that justice is done and the fundamental rights of Victorians are restored.

The provoked riots in Sydney are revealing what happens when Australians get sick of a minority trying to impose, with the tacit agreement of cowardly politicians and half-witted multiculturalists, its reactionary Muslim beliefs on them

How does the slimy Mr Bracks view the riots that were incited by Lebanese Muslim thuggery? “Similar violence against ethnic minorities could occur [here]” (The Age, Attacks possible here, 12 December). Now you have it, Muslim thugs provoke riots and the lying Bracks smears the locals as racists.

Although it is something of mystery why Bracks is determined to impose a blasphemy law that favours Muslim bigots, what is not a mystery is the man’s contempt for the truth. Last September this mountebank met with several bishops. He looked them in straight in the eye and promised to make his blasphemy law less onerous. The lying creep then went about subverting our liberty by further strengthening this vicious law.

As a member of the Liberal Party I am outraged that Robert Doyle has supported Bracks’ anti-free speech laws. There are those of us in the Party who are sick of his moral cowardice and his lack of principles. We are also sick of Michael Kroger’s political string-pulling. Thanks to this power mad Brahmin the Party has been lumbered with the likes of Boyle, Sheezel and Helen Kroger.

Rumour has it that Kroger’s number is up. In the meantime the Party’s real liberals, liberal in the classical sense of the word, need to take a stand. Now Brookes has never bothered with religious matters, but when a bunch of theocrats, irrespective of their religion, succeed in limiting our freedoms then it is time to act.

It genuinely grieves me to have to do this because the Muslims I have known and worked with have always been decent to me and never raised the question of religious beliefs. But Bracks’ vile laws and the totalitarian behaviour of EOC and VCAT officials have left me with no alternative. So here goes: The Koran is crap and Mohammed was a child-molestering, thieving, lying, murderous sadistic misogynist who couldn’t even spell his own name. How anyone with half a brain could be taken in by this loathsome thug beats me.

Now the law is the law, Bracks: So prosecute me. If you haven’t got the guts get the conspiring Diane Sisely and May Helou to send in their religious police. But if you think for one moment that a man like me would politely stand by and allow your two-faced commissars or some Vishinski-like judge to lecture me on tolerance and freedom, then you really are stupid.

While leftwing journalists and slimy politicians like Bracks and NSW Premier Morris Iemma smear Australians as racists, I should like to draw attention to what Professor von Mises had to say on the clash of values, which is what this is really all about:

In an Australia governed according to [classical] liberal principles, what difficulties could arise from the fact that in some parts of the continent Japanese and in other parts Englishmen were in the majority? (Liberalism: A Socio- Economic Exposition, Sheed-McMeel, 1978. Originally published as Liberalismus, Jena: G. Fischer, 1927).

But the treacherous likes of Sisely, Bracks and the bigoted Helou despise classical liberal values, preferring instead the heavy hand of the police state. These people and their admirers have clearly demonstrated their tyrannical inclinations, revealing once and for all that they are not to be trusted with any degree of political power.

*This is how the Hollywood branch of the Communist Party of the United States disciplined writers, producers and actors who challenged the party line. See Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley’s Hollywood Party, Prima Publishing, 1998. Also the God that Failed, Columbia Press 2001, reveals just how vicious this mentality is. Mao’s Red Guards took this procedure of public confession, guilt and humiliation to its logical and gruesome conclusion. Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang and John Halliday, Jonathan Cape London, 2005.

Let us all pray
By Andrew Bolt
14nov03

LET me tell you how two Christian pastors came to be on trial after discussing Islam in church, in a case that's so far cost them $100,000.

This will show how our shiny-eyed Equal Opportunity Commission can cause more religious strife than it solves. And helps kill free speech in doing it.

Diane Sisely, the EOC boss, was not happy last year. She hadn't found the many Muslim-hating racists last year she felt were out there, particularly after the September 11 attacks.

Sisely was ready for them – and armed. The Bracks Government, in an appalling attack on free speech, had passed its new racial and religious vilification laws, under which people could be jailed for speaking their minds.

But what did she find?

Peace and tolerance, according to the figures in her annual report, rather than the "dramatic levels" of hatred she'd warned of.

In fact, the EOC in the 12 months to June last year logged just five complaints of religious vilification in the entire state, covering all faiths and none.

Just five. Plus 72 complaints – including the trivial and try-on – of religious discrimination.

This wasn't good enough. And so Sisely, who said the low figures proved people were too scared to complain, took action.

Over the next year, her staff taught nearly 10,000 Victorians, particularly Muslims and Arabs, about our discrimination and vilification laws – and how to complain to her office. It seemed the EOC wanted more complaints.

And, early last year, Sisely hired May Helou.

I THOUGHT the EOC had to serve all Victorians equally. But in hiring Helou, Sisely risked giving the perception that the EOC sided with Muslims above all other religious groups.

After all, May Helou was the head of the Islamic Council of Victoria's support groups for women and for Muslim converts, and now sits on its executive.

The Islamic Council would have been delighted to see what work its official was now given by the EOC.

As an EOC bulletin says, Helou's job is to make sure "people from Arabic and Muslim communities are aware of their rights under anti-discrimination laws" and offer "support to people wishing to make a complaint".

But then she took a step that makes it look even more as if the EOC now doesn't just resolve complaints, but even incites them.

One evening, at the Islamic Council headquarters, Helou alerted several Muslim converts to a seminar on jihad to be run by a Melbourne Pentecostal church, Catch the Fire Ministries.

One of the converts, Jan Jackson, last month told a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing that Helou was worried the seminar would be full of Christians "without any Muslims present".

SHE said Helou asked her to go, and even rang her at home at 8.30 on the morning of the seminar to again ask: "Can you please go?"

Another convert, Malcolm Thomas, now the Islamic Council's secretary, told VCAT that Helou asked him to attend, too. A third, Yusuf Eades, said he couldn't be sure which Islamic Council leader asked him to go.

And so Catch the Fire – unknown to its leader, Pastor Danny Nalliah, and its speaker, Pastor Daniel Scot – had among the 250 Christians at its seminar three Muslims, all sent by Helou and a colleague, and seemingly ready to feel vilified.

Bingo. The speaker, Scot, was a Pakistani who had faced a death sentence in Muslim Pakistan for being a Christian, and had lived in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He was not only familiar with Muslim countries, but had read the Koran many times.

He certainly knew it better than did Jackson, as she admitted to VCAT.

As he talked, he cited passages in the Koran and Hadith that he said radical clerics used to justify armed jihad, looting, the killing of converts from Islam, the rape of captive women, lying for the faith and more.

(Catch the Fire's website lists the Koranic sources Scot used, and examples of Islamic leaders and scholars who interpret these verses in the way he warned of.)

When Scot finished, one of the converts, Thomas, stood and asked: how should Christians respond?

"Pray," Scot replied. Muslims "should be loved".

But the converts were still furious, and said they felt vilified and scared. Jackson said she didn't like the way the audience had laughed at the Koran, either.

One confronted Scot during a break, and Jackson left a message for Helou at her work about what she'd seen.

Some time later, the converts met Helou at the EOC and decided to complain to the EOC about the pastors.

But how manufactured was this complaint? After all, if Helou and her colleague hadn't asked the converts to monitor the seminar, no Muslims would have been there to feel offended or frightened.

WORSE, the EOC, whose staff member incited this complaint, now had to act as the neutral "umpire" in conciliation talks between the converts and pastors.

Stranger still, Helou not only was a member of the EOC that was trying to conciliate this case, but was a leader of the Islamic Council that officially joined the converts in their complaint.

Let me stress that Helou herself was not involved in the conciliation, and three months ago left the EOC. I do not say she acted deceitfully, against EOC rules or with improper motives.

She may well have prompted the complaint in her role with the Islamic Council, not the EOC. But the conflicts of interest here are disturbing. It is tyrannical for a state body to be both prosecutor and judge, or, at least, conciliator. And an EOC official shouldn't organise complaints involving a group of which she is a member. That is unfair – and dangerous.

The EOC conciliation talks failed, and so Nalliah and Scot must now defend their right to free speech in a VCAT hearing that has dragged on for four expensive and draining weeks.

This heated legal battle has inflamed passions on both sides. The Islamic Council badly wants to win and says Muslims around the world are watching.

MEANWHILE, Christians even in the United States and England have claimed that the pastors are persecuted, and VCAT's hearings are filled with sternly praying folk.

What a tribute to the EOC and to the Government's foul laws against free speech, which were actually meant to spread religious tolerance, not inspire such conflict and oppression.

But let's look at the bright side. The converts have given Sisely three more complaints to add to her little list. In the discrimination industry, that seems to count as a success.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7864988%255E25717,00.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=12226&commentID=260421

From my perspective, Victoria is a quite conservative place in most ways. Partly that is the circles I move in, I suppose, but in some ways, I think the socialist aspects of our government here can be partly explained by the conservative mindset of a lot of Victoria's prominent citizens.

Things that Steve Bracks does, laws that Labor pass when they are in government don't really worry us. We're secure enough in our conservative beliefs that the fact we have a socialist government around half the time doesn't phase us. They're not going to do much damage. Take the Religious Vilification laws as one example - while they are unfortunate for the people who've currently fallen victim to them, Victorian conservatives are generally educated enough to understand that such laws are almost certainly unconstitutional and will eventually be ruled as such when a case reaches the High Court. So why get too upset about them?

Basically, there's an attitude here that, to an extent, we can let the socialists make their changes while they are in office, because if they are bad changes, we'll change them back when we next take office. Sure, they can be annoying while we're dealing with them.

The only time we tend to get worked up about things is when they attack the instutions we regard as important - our schools for example. Not schools in general - our schools - there's some concerns about the new Education Act, of which a draft was released last week. But generally speaking, we don't really worry too much about them.

Frankly the groups that socialist policies in Victoria tend to harm most are those that vote for the socialists. Most conservatives can pretty much ignore the state government. And they do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.